1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:08,640
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,760 --> 00:00:11,600
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has not been what you'd call a

3
00:00:11,680 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 2: friend of the environment with its trend of weakening federal protections,

4
00:00:16,520 --> 00:00:19,439
Speaker 2: and this term was no different, with the Court delivering

5
00:00:19,560 --> 00:00:24,400
Speaker 2: several setbacks to environmental protections. Joining me is environmental law

6
00:00:24,440 --> 00:00:27,520
Speaker 2: expert Pat Parento, a professor at the Vermont Law and

7
00:00:27,640 --> 00:00:32,800
Speaker 2: Graduate School. Pat this last term, how much damage did

8
00:00:32,800 --> 00:00:37,479
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court do overall to environmental protections? I mean,

9
00:00:37,560 --> 00:00:38,800
Speaker 2: let's say scale a one to ten.

10
00:00:39,520 --> 00:00:41,680
Speaker 1: Oh, on a scale of one to ten, I would

11
00:00:41,680 --> 00:00:45,360
Speaker 1: say it was a seven. There wasn't any really blockbuster,

12
00:00:45,960 --> 00:00:50,240
Speaker 1: one single blockbuster decision. There were a series of decisions

13
00:00:50,240 --> 00:00:53,480
Speaker 1: that went against the environment, you could say, certainly went

14
00:00:53,520 --> 00:00:58,120
Speaker 1: against the parties that were advocating for environmental protection. On

15
00:00:58,160 --> 00:01:02,200
Speaker 1: the other hand, you know, on climate the Supreme Court

16
00:01:02,320 --> 00:01:05,679
Speaker 1: actually did the right thing in denying review in the

17
00:01:05,720 --> 00:01:11,039
Speaker 1: Honolulu case and in two other cases that the Red

18
00:01:11,080 --> 00:01:14,680
Speaker 1: state attorneys general had brought trying to get the Supreme

19
00:01:14,720 --> 00:01:19,040
Speaker 1: Court to take what's called original jurisdiction. Over All of

20
00:01:19,080 --> 00:01:22,600
Speaker 1: these forty plus climate cases filed by the states and

21
00:01:22,680 --> 00:01:25,440
Speaker 1: cities and so forth. So, you know, I mean it's

22
00:01:25,440 --> 00:01:28,680
Speaker 1: a mixed bag. It's generally bad for the environment, but

23
00:01:28,720 --> 00:01:31,960
Speaker 1: there were a few, i guess, small scale victories.

24
00:01:32,440 --> 00:01:36,560
Speaker 3: So perhaps the biggest environmental decision of the term was

25
00:01:36,760 --> 00:01:41,200
Speaker 3: one that involved a proposed Utah railway that's going to

26
00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:43,160
Speaker 3: transport crude oil.

27
00:01:43,680 --> 00:01:48,640
Speaker 1: Right in the Uinta Basin of Utah. And this is

28
00:01:48,720 --> 00:01:51,480
Speaker 1: heavy crude. It's a form of crude that has not

29
00:01:51,640 --> 00:01:56,600
Speaker 1: been actually extracted. And this rail line, approved by the

30
00:01:56,640 --> 00:02:01,280
Speaker 1: Surface Transportation Board, was about an eighty plus mile rail

31
00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:05,200
Speaker 1: line totally within Utah, but it was designed to transport

32
00:02:05,280 --> 00:02:07,720
Speaker 1: this oil east and all the way to the Gulf

33
00:02:07,760 --> 00:02:10,800
Speaker 1: Coast to be refined and then either exported or burned

34
00:02:10,919 --> 00:02:14,120
Speaker 1: in the United States. And you know, this kind of

35
00:02:14,160 --> 00:02:18,200
Speaker 1: heavy crewd is some of the worst climate damaging fuels

36
00:02:18,200 --> 00:02:21,440
Speaker 1: you could have. And the question was, you know, when

37
00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:25,760
Speaker 1: the Service Transportation Board is considering the impacts under the

38
00:02:25,840 --> 00:02:29,280
Speaker 1: National Environmental Policy Actor, they have to look at upstream

39
00:02:29,360 --> 00:02:32,800
Speaker 1: impacts from the extraction the drilling, and do they also

40
00:02:32,880 --> 00:02:36,320
Speaker 1: have to look at downstream impacts of burning the oil

41
00:02:36,360 --> 00:02:39,840
Speaker 1: in the refineries, in the air pollution impacts that that creates.

42
00:02:40,280 --> 00:02:43,560
Speaker 1: The Service Transportation Board under Biden did look at those things,

43
00:02:43,600 --> 00:02:46,440
Speaker 1: the upstream downstream effects, but they did so in a

44
00:02:46,480 --> 00:02:49,320
Speaker 1: way that sort of acknowledged we don't as the Surface

45
00:02:49,360 --> 00:02:53,680
Speaker 1: Transportation Board, have any control over the extraction the drilling.

46
00:02:53,720 --> 00:02:56,600
Speaker 1: We don't regulate that, and we don't regulate the refineries.

47
00:02:57,000 --> 00:02:59,800
Speaker 1: So they did a sort of back of the envelope

48
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:02,680
Speaker 1: and of calculation of what the impacts would be. The

49
00:03:02,760 --> 00:03:05,760
Speaker 1: DC Circuit said, that's not good enough. Under NEVA, you

50
00:03:05,880 --> 00:03:09,360
Speaker 1: have to take a harder look at these indirect effects.

51
00:03:09,680 --> 00:03:13,919
Speaker 1: That has been the law generally UNDERNATHA for you know, forever,

52
00:03:14,040 --> 00:03:17,240
Speaker 1: since NEPA was enacted in nineteen seventy. So there was

53
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:19,480
Speaker 1: no big surprise, I think among those of us who

54
00:03:19,560 --> 00:03:22,400
Speaker 1: follow these cases that the Supreme Court was going to

55
00:03:22,440 --> 00:03:25,480
Speaker 1: overturn the DC Circuit. But the way it did it,

56
00:03:25,560 --> 00:03:29,840
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh opinion, is what's troubling. It basically said, for

57
00:03:30,320 --> 00:03:34,280
Speaker 1: indirect effects that are remote in space and time and

58
00:03:34,440 --> 00:03:40,160
Speaker 1: over which the agency does not have regulatory authority, those

59
00:03:40,240 --> 00:03:43,560
Speaker 1: kinds of impacts don't have to be considered, and the

60
00:03:43,640 --> 00:03:48,000
Speaker 1: Court should defer to agencies making those kinds of factual

61
00:03:48,080 --> 00:03:52,280
Speaker 1: determination and also legal determinations on whether they have authority.

62
00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:55,560
Speaker 1: And then in addition, Kavanaugh said, and oh, by the way,

63
00:03:56,000 --> 00:03:59,400
Speaker 1: since NEPA is just quote, a procedural statute, which is

64
00:03:59,480 --> 00:04:02,960
Speaker 1: true an important one. But it's certainly true that it's procedural.

65
00:04:03,000 --> 00:04:07,000
Speaker 1: It doesn't require a particular decision to be made, but

66
00:04:07,080 --> 00:04:10,320
Speaker 1: it requires that you disclose what the foreseeable impacts of

67
00:04:10,360 --> 00:04:13,680
Speaker 1: your decision is. But because it's just a procedural statute,

68
00:04:13,720 --> 00:04:16,680
Speaker 1: of course, shouldn't be too quick to either enjoin an

69
00:04:16,760 --> 00:04:21,120
Speaker 1: agency from proceeding even where there have been violations of NEPA,

70
00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:26,560
Speaker 1: and should not immediately vacate underlying decisions that the agency

71
00:04:26,560 --> 00:04:29,279
Speaker 1: has made, like issuing a license or a permit, or

72
00:04:29,320 --> 00:04:32,240
Speaker 1: making a grant for a project. And so you know,

73
00:04:32,360 --> 00:04:35,800
Speaker 1: that was a gratuitous slap at the law and a

74
00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:38,360
Speaker 1: signal to the lower courts you don't have to take

75
00:04:38,440 --> 00:04:41,600
Speaker 1: NEPA all that seriously. Violations of NEPA. You can look

76
00:04:41,680 --> 00:04:44,040
Speaker 1: at it and decide, well, it's just not that serious.

77
00:04:44,480 --> 00:04:47,040
Speaker 1: Nothing is really going to be changed when we disclose

78
00:04:47,160 --> 00:04:50,839
Speaker 1: these impacts, So let it go. That was very troubling,

79
00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:52,000
Speaker 1: and so.

80
00:04:52,240 --> 00:04:57,839
Speaker 2: It was eight to zero because Justice course recused himself.

81
00:04:58,000 --> 00:05:00,440
Speaker 2: I mean, why did the three liberals con occur in.

82
00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:04,919
Speaker 1: That they concurred in the judgment, but not in Kavanaugh's

83
00:05:04,920 --> 00:05:09,280
Speaker 1: weeping opinion, both on you know, agencies just don't ever

84
00:05:09,400 --> 00:05:12,960
Speaker 1: have to consider these indirect effects that are quote remote

85
00:05:12,960 --> 00:05:17,960
Speaker 1: in time and space. The three liberal justices basically said,

86
00:05:18,000 --> 00:05:19,640
Speaker 1: you don't have to go that far. You know. The

87
00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:23,120
Speaker 1: only question is did the dec Circuit court go too far?

88
00:05:23,480 --> 00:05:25,680
Speaker 1: And the answer to that is yeah, they did. They

89
00:05:25,680 --> 00:05:28,880
Speaker 1: were demanding too much in this particular case where the

90
00:05:28,920 --> 00:05:32,640
Speaker 1: agency had done some consideration and they were just demanding

91
00:05:32,720 --> 00:05:35,640
Speaker 1: more and that was a bridge too far, and certainly

92
00:05:35,680 --> 00:05:39,159
Speaker 1: not agreeing with Kavanaugh's comment about, you know, don't take

93
00:05:39,320 --> 00:05:43,720
Speaker 1: NEPA violation seriously. So that's why the three liberals concurred

94
00:05:43,720 --> 00:05:47,839
Speaker 1: in the judgment, but not in the rationale that Kavanaugh advanced.

95
00:05:48,200 --> 00:05:51,000
Speaker 2: So does this make clear what the lower courts have

96
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:51,440
Speaker 2: to do?

97
00:05:52,320 --> 00:05:56,039
Speaker 1: No? No, I mean, this is yet another example of

98
00:05:56,120 --> 00:06:00,680
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court thinking it's clarifying matters. It's not. And

99
00:06:00,760 --> 00:06:03,240
Speaker 1: you know, it's going to be up to individual judges

100
00:06:03,400 --> 00:06:06,160
Speaker 1: across the country. There are over seven hundred federal judges

101
00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:09,640
Speaker 1: and more on the way, more Trump appointees on the way,

102
00:06:10,160 --> 00:06:13,200
Speaker 1: and you know, Kavanaugh was clear and saying, it's up

103
00:06:13,240 --> 00:06:17,159
Speaker 1: to the courts that are reviewing these actions. You should

104
00:06:17,200 --> 00:06:22,880
Speaker 1: defer to an agency's factual determinations that these impacts are

105
00:06:22,880 --> 00:06:26,680
Speaker 1: remote in time and space. But you don't necessarily have

106
00:06:26,880 --> 00:06:30,520
Speaker 1: to agree with the agency if there's reason to believe

107
00:06:30,560 --> 00:06:34,279
Speaker 1: the agency, you know, either has authority to do more

108
00:06:34,600 --> 00:06:37,800
Speaker 1: about these impacts or that these impacts are really not

109
00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:41,760
Speaker 1: that remote in time and space. You can imagine, you know,

110
00:06:41,839 --> 00:06:46,880
Speaker 1: all the different kinds of federal decisions that impact the environment, right.

111
00:06:46,920 --> 00:06:49,839
Speaker 1: I mean, it's like there are hundreds of agencies of

112
00:06:49,880 --> 00:06:53,960
Speaker 1: the federal government that have authority to approve or finance

113
00:06:54,040 --> 00:06:57,800
Speaker 1: or whatever projects that impact the environment. So no, I

114
00:06:57,800 --> 00:07:01,039
Speaker 1: mean a test like this where you should defer to

115
00:07:01,080 --> 00:07:04,200
Speaker 1: the agency where it makes sense to defer to the

116
00:07:04,240 --> 00:07:07,840
Speaker 1: agency that doesn't clarify very much. I think we can

117
00:07:07,920 --> 00:07:15,000
Speaker 1: say for sure that conservative judges will now have more authority,

118
00:07:15,080 --> 00:07:20,240
Speaker 1: if you will, and more inclination to approve and agencies,

119
00:07:20,360 --> 00:07:25,560
Speaker 1: particularly right now under the Trump administration, approve agency determinations

120
00:07:25,560 --> 00:07:29,960
Speaker 1: that they really can't consider these impacts they're too speculative.

121
00:07:30,360 --> 00:07:33,520
Speaker 1: So in that sense, it is a signal to the

122
00:07:33,560 --> 00:07:36,600
Speaker 1: courts to defer to the agencies when they say they

123
00:07:36,920 --> 00:07:40,240
Speaker 1: can't figure out how to you know, consider these impacts

124
00:07:40,360 --> 00:07:42,560
Speaker 1: or they don't know what they could do about them

125
00:07:42,600 --> 00:07:45,440
Speaker 1: if they do consider them. But I still think there's

126
00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:48,520
Speaker 1: going to be litigation. I know this because the public

127
00:07:48,600 --> 00:07:50,520
Speaker 1: interest groups aren't just going to throw in the towel.

128
00:07:50,560 --> 00:07:54,160
Speaker 1: They're going to keep testing, you know, the authority of

129
00:07:54,240 --> 00:07:59,240
Speaker 1: agencies to disregard impacts that, again, they're foreseeable impacts. The

130
00:07:59,280 --> 00:08:02,680
Speaker 1: court in the Utah case didn't say these weren't foreseeable.

131
00:08:03,120 --> 00:08:06,560
Speaker 1: They just said, well, they're just too remote and they're

132
00:08:06,680 --> 00:08:10,040
Speaker 1: impacts that the agency really can't do much about. So

133
00:08:10,080 --> 00:08:12,320
Speaker 1: there's going to be arguments about that going forward.

134
00:08:12,840 --> 00:08:16,280
Speaker 2: Let'ster the EPA. The Court has restricted the power of

135
00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:20,720
Speaker 2: the EPA in several rulings over the last few years,

136
00:08:21,320 --> 00:08:23,600
Speaker 2: and it lost again at the Court in a case

137
00:08:23,680 --> 00:08:26,680
Speaker 2: where San Francisco was suing the agency.

138
00:08:27,640 --> 00:08:35,199
Speaker 1: Right So, San Francisco sued EPA for requiring San Francisco

139
00:08:35,320 --> 00:08:38,880
Speaker 1: to comply with water quality standards, which are set by

140
00:08:38,880 --> 00:08:42,640
Speaker 1: the states but approved by EPA, and they are designed

141
00:08:42,679 --> 00:08:48,080
Speaker 1: to protect beneficial uses of water fishing, swimming, drinking, boating,

142
00:08:48,160 --> 00:08:53,000
Speaker 1: et cetera. And you know, San Francisco has combined to

143
00:08:53,160 --> 00:08:58,040
Speaker 1: or overflows that discharged raw sewage into the Pacific Ocean

144
00:08:58,840 --> 00:09:02,000
Speaker 1: and they affect beach. I mean, this is eecal coliform,

145
00:09:02,040 --> 00:09:05,240
Speaker 1: bacteria and viruses. I mean, this is really bad stuff.

146
00:09:05,240 --> 00:09:10,120
Speaker 1: It's not just unpleasant, right, it threatens public health. And

147
00:09:10,200 --> 00:09:13,319
Speaker 1: so you know, IPA said, look, San Francisco, you've been

148
00:09:13,800 --> 00:09:16,360
Speaker 1: working on this problem for years, but you're not getting

149
00:09:16,920 --> 00:09:19,199
Speaker 1: where you need to go. You need to do more.

150
00:09:19,640 --> 00:09:22,319
Speaker 1: You either need to separate your system, which is very

151
00:09:22,360 --> 00:09:25,880
Speaker 1: expensive in the billions of dollars, and separate the storm

152
00:09:25,920 --> 00:09:28,559
Speaker 1: water from the sewage system and then deal with the

153
00:09:28,600 --> 00:09:31,680
Speaker 1: treatment problems of each one separately. You either need to

154
00:09:31,720 --> 00:09:33,800
Speaker 1: do that or you need to come up with some

155
00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:38,200
Speaker 1: other kinds of mechanisms that, you know, don't expose people

156
00:09:38,240 --> 00:09:41,280
Speaker 1: that are swimming in the Pacific Ocean to getting disease.

157
00:09:41,679 --> 00:09:44,920
Speaker 1: But they didn't say specifically, here isn't a blueprint for

158
00:09:45,000 --> 00:09:47,840
Speaker 1: what you have to do. Alito wrote the opinion for

159
00:09:47,880 --> 00:09:50,280
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. He said, that's not good enough. You

160
00:09:50,400 --> 00:09:55,920
Speaker 1: have to tell permittees like San Francisco and others industry, agriculture,

161
00:09:56,360 --> 00:10:00,440
Speaker 1: wide variety. You know, of entities that discharge pollutants into

162
00:10:00,480 --> 00:10:03,040
Speaker 1: the waters of the United States rivers and lakes and

163
00:10:03,040 --> 00:10:05,160
Speaker 1: so forth. You can't just tell them, well, you have

164
00:10:05,240 --> 00:10:10,280
Speaker 1: to comply with these so called end results water quality standards.

165
00:10:10,320 --> 00:10:15,240
Speaker 1: And you know, in dissent, Justice Barrett Hooray for her

166
00:10:15,800 --> 00:10:20,480
Speaker 1: joining with her sisters, the liberal sisters on the Supreme Court, said,

167
00:10:20,679 --> 00:10:22,960
Speaker 1: you know, not only is that not what the Clean

168
00:10:23,000 --> 00:10:27,720
Speaker 1: Water Act said, it's pretty explicit. It says other limitations

169
00:10:27,760 --> 00:10:31,520
Speaker 1: required to protect water quality. Well, that's exactly what EBA

170
00:10:31,640 --> 00:10:35,760
Speaker 1: did here, right. You use technology where you have technology,

171
00:10:36,120 --> 00:10:40,240
Speaker 1: and you use numerical standards for individual pollutants when you

172
00:10:40,280 --> 00:10:43,440
Speaker 1: can set those. But when you have something like a

173
00:10:43,480 --> 00:10:47,800
Speaker 1: toxic soup coming out of a city's discharge, you know,

174
00:10:47,880 --> 00:10:51,160
Speaker 1: those kinds of mechanisms don't work so well. So you're

175
00:10:51,160 --> 00:10:53,080
Speaker 1: going to have to come up with something more creative

176
00:10:53,160 --> 00:10:57,320
Speaker 1: than that to protect people and protect the water quality.

177
00:10:57,720 --> 00:11:01,120
Speaker 1: And in addition, she said, it's not necessarily a great

178
00:11:01,160 --> 00:11:04,720
Speaker 1: idea to have EPA dictating to cities and states what

179
00:11:04,800 --> 00:11:08,080
Speaker 1: they have to do to comply with water quality standards.

180
00:11:08,160 --> 00:11:10,920
Speaker 1: Why doesn't it make sense to say you have to

181
00:11:10,960 --> 00:11:14,720
Speaker 1: do more to comply with these standards, you're violating them,

182
00:11:15,040 --> 00:11:18,280
Speaker 1: but to give the states and cities some flexibility in

183
00:11:18,400 --> 00:11:20,880
Speaker 1: how they would do it. You know, keep the pressure

184
00:11:21,000 --> 00:11:24,600
Speaker 1: on the cities to comply with the Clean Water Act,

185
00:11:24,880 --> 00:11:28,920
Speaker 1: but don't necessarily dictate precisely what's needed to do that.

186
00:11:29,320 --> 00:11:32,480
Speaker 1: So that was the San Francisco case. It's interesting that

187
00:11:32,559 --> 00:11:37,120
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court also denied review in another case called

188
00:11:37,120 --> 00:11:40,360
Speaker 1: the Puget Sound sound Keeper case, and.

189
00:11:40,280 --> 00:11:42,640
Speaker 2: The issue there was similar to the issue in the

190
00:11:42,679 --> 00:11:44,080
Speaker 2: San Francisco.

191
00:11:43,600 --> 00:11:47,280
Speaker 1: Case, and that issue was whether or not a state

192
00:11:47,320 --> 00:11:52,080
Speaker 1: could impose a condition in a wastewater permit that was

193
00:11:52,120 --> 00:11:55,160
Speaker 1: beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act, and the

194
00:11:55,280 --> 00:11:58,840
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit ruled that, well, that's an interesting question. But

195
00:11:59,480 --> 00:12:03,720
Speaker 1: the point is that in this case, the entity that's

196
00:12:03,800 --> 00:12:07,640
Speaker 1: required to comply with the law didn't challenge the permit

197
00:12:07,720 --> 00:12:11,080
Speaker 1: condition when they could have, and so therefore the court

198
00:12:11,120 --> 00:12:15,160
Speaker 1: applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel and said, you're a

199
00:12:15,280 --> 00:12:20,040
Speaker 1: stop from complaining about something you could have complained about earlier,

200
00:12:20,480 --> 00:12:22,720
Speaker 1: and now you can't raise it for the first time

201
00:12:22,760 --> 00:12:26,160
Speaker 1: in an enforcement action. And the point here is the

202
00:12:26,200 --> 00:12:30,439
Speaker 1: Supreme Court denied review in the Puget sound Keeper case.

203
00:12:30,480 --> 00:12:32,920
Speaker 1: I would have bet they would have taken that case

204
00:12:33,480 --> 00:12:36,320
Speaker 1: because of the exceeding the scope of the Clean Water

205
00:12:36,440 --> 00:12:40,240
Speaker 1: Act issue, but they didn't. So that raises the question,

206
00:12:40,520 --> 00:12:43,960
Speaker 1: in the back to the San Francisco case, what about

207
00:12:43,960 --> 00:12:48,240
Speaker 1: all these permits that have these end result conditions in them?

208
00:12:48,280 --> 00:12:53,640
Speaker 1: Because most, if not all NPDS permits do have such

209
00:12:53,679 --> 00:12:57,240
Speaker 1: a condition. Right, that's required by EPA's rules that you

210
00:12:57,320 --> 00:13:00,960
Speaker 1: have a condition in state issued NPA es permits that

211
00:13:01,040 --> 00:13:02,200
Speaker 1: have that kind of condition.

212
00:13:02,360 --> 00:13:02,560
Speaker 3: Right.

213
00:13:03,000 --> 00:13:06,640
Speaker 1: So, now, with what the Ninth Circuit has said in

214
00:13:06,679 --> 00:13:10,200
Speaker 1: the Puget Sound case and what the Supreme Court has

215
00:13:10,240 --> 00:13:14,120
Speaker 1: refused to review, I predict we're going to see people

216
00:13:14,160 --> 00:13:19,600
Speaker 1: trying to enforce these end result conditions and arguing that

217
00:13:20,160 --> 00:13:24,720
Speaker 1: your opportunity to challenge those conditions was when the permit

218
00:13:24,880 --> 00:13:27,719
Speaker 1: was issued. And so you're going to have a collateralist

219
00:13:27,720 --> 00:13:34,080
Speaker 1: stopple argument, which means more chaos. Even though again Alito

220
00:13:34,200 --> 00:13:38,320
Speaker 1: thinks by saying you can't impose end result conditions in

221
00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:42,320
Speaker 1: a permit, that resolves the question, No, it doesn't. It

222
00:13:42,400 --> 00:13:46,360
Speaker 1: now raises the question of whether these permit conditions that

223
00:13:46,480 --> 00:13:49,560
Speaker 1: could have been challenged, but we are still in effect.

224
00:13:49,720 --> 00:13:51,520
Speaker 1: So there you go. More chaos.

225
00:13:51,800 --> 00:13:54,600
Speaker 2: Well, Alito thought that the Dobbs decision would end the

226
00:13:54,640 --> 00:13:58,280
Speaker 2: abortion questions, So there you go. Coming up next, how

227
00:13:58,320 --> 00:14:03,319
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court's decision limiting judges from issuing nationwide injunctions

228
00:14:03,679 --> 00:14:08,880
Speaker 2: affects environmental litigation. This is Bloomberg. I've been talking to

229
00:14:09,000 --> 00:14:12,840
Speaker 2: Professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Lawn Graduate School about

230
00:14:12,880 --> 00:14:16,840
Speaker 2: several cases this term where the Supreme Court delivered setbacks

231
00:14:16,880 --> 00:14:20,840
Speaker 2: to the environment. There was a case involving standing to

232
00:14:21,000 --> 00:14:24,840
Speaker 2: sue where the justices, in a seven to two ruling,

233
00:14:25,440 --> 00:14:29,480
Speaker 2: sided with fuel producers that were suing over California's standards

234
00:14:29,560 --> 00:14:34,360
Speaker 2: for vehicle emissions and electric cars. First, tell us what

235
00:14:34,480 --> 00:14:37,080
Speaker 2: are California's standards Right now?

236
00:14:37,400 --> 00:14:40,840
Speaker 1: Two things have happened. One to Congress. The House and

237
00:14:40,880 --> 00:14:45,440
Speaker 1: in the Senate used the Congressional Review Act to overrule

238
00:14:46,040 --> 00:14:50,560
Speaker 1: EPA's approval of California's waiver under the Clean Air Act,

239
00:14:50,560 --> 00:14:53,960
Speaker 1: which would give California the opportunity to set more stringent

240
00:14:54,240 --> 00:14:58,200
Speaker 1: tailpipe emission standards. And thirteen other states, including Vermont and

241
00:14:58,280 --> 00:15:01,080
Speaker 1: New York I, have adopted the cal California standards. But

242
00:15:01,240 --> 00:15:06,040
Speaker 1: now that Congress has overruled the waiver, those standards are

243
00:15:06,040 --> 00:15:10,320
Speaker 1: not in effect. California has sued. Attorney General Bonta has sued.

244
00:15:10,720 --> 00:15:13,920
Speaker 1: The problem is that the Congressional Review Act says the

245
00:15:13,960 --> 00:15:17,160
Speaker 1: courts don't have authority to review decisions of Congress to

246
00:15:17,800 --> 00:15:21,680
Speaker 1: overturn these rules. That's a complicated legal question. You know,

247
00:15:22,040 --> 00:15:24,600
Speaker 1: the waiver is really not a rule. It's a waiver.

248
00:15:24,800 --> 00:15:28,320
Speaker 1: It's a fact based determination. It's not a rule like

249
00:15:28,360 --> 00:15:32,080
Speaker 1: you normally see under the Clean Air Actor or other statutes,

250
00:15:32,200 --> 00:15:36,160
Speaker 1: you know, which are uniform and nationwide and general policy,

251
00:15:36,200 --> 00:15:39,479
Speaker 1: et cetera. You know, the waiver is specific to California.

252
00:15:39,600 --> 00:15:43,120
Speaker 1: So the point is, you know, Bonta would ordinarily have

253
00:15:43,160 --> 00:15:46,440
Speaker 1: a pretty good argument that what Congress did was illegal.

254
00:15:46,520 --> 00:15:49,720
Speaker 1: But Congress did it, and Congress also said you can't

255
00:15:49,720 --> 00:15:53,120
Speaker 1: review what we did. So you know, my prediction is

256
00:15:53,280 --> 00:15:56,000
Speaker 1: Bonta is probably going to lose that case. In addition,

257
00:15:56,440 --> 00:15:59,520
Speaker 1: the big Ugly Bill that I'm going to call it

258
00:15:59,800 --> 00:16:04,680
Speaker 1: also contains a provision saying you can't penalize car companies

259
00:16:05,320 --> 00:16:08,120
Speaker 1: for violating what are called the cafe standards. This is

260
00:16:08,200 --> 00:16:11,800
Speaker 1: under a different statute, the fuel Economy standards under the

261
00:16:11,920 --> 00:16:15,520
Speaker 1: Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which was passed during the

262
00:16:15,600 --> 00:16:18,800
Speaker 1: era of oil embargo, back in Jimmy Carter's time, and

263
00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:22,360
Speaker 1: you know, NITSA under the Department of Transportation has set

264
00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:26,280
Speaker 1: these very stringent fuel economy standards and the companies are

265
00:16:26,320 --> 00:16:30,600
Speaker 1: clearly in violation of those standards, and the big ugly

266
00:16:30,640 --> 00:16:32,880
Speaker 1: bill has just said, yeah, but you can't penalize them

267
00:16:32,880 --> 00:16:36,720
Speaker 1: for that. The bill didn't repeal the standards. The companies

268
00:16:36,760 --> 00:16:39,680
Speaker 1: are still in violation of the standards, but the bill

269
00:16:39,720 --> 00:16:43,600
Speaker 1: says you can't penalize them for that. So, you know,

270
00:16:43,800 --> 00:16:48,240
Speaker 1: in two whacks at the largest source of greenhouse gas

271
00:16:48,240 --> 00:16:52,600
Speaker 1: emissions and many other pollutants, you know, volatile organic compounds

272
00:16:52,600 --> 00:16:55,160
Speaker 1: and so forth, you know, pollutants that are causing again

273
00:16:55,600 --> 00:16:59,280
Speaker 1: serious public health problems across the country. But the Congress

274
00:16:59,320 --> 00:17:04,080
Speaker 1: has in twos taken out two of the federal regulatory

275
00:17:04,119 --> 00:17:07,840
Speaker 1: provisions that are designed to deal with the mission standards

276
00:17:08,160 --> 00:17:12,280
Speaker 1: and fuel economy standards, which would improve the performance of

277
00:17:12,640 --> 00:17:17,080
Speaker 1: the transportation system, not just greenhouse gases, but all these

278
00:17:17,080 --> 00:17:20,040
Speaker 1: other pollutants as well. So we talked about a bad

279
00:17:20,119 --> 00:17:22,800
Speaker 1: year for the environment in the Supreme Court. Oh my god,

280
00:17:23,200 --> 00:17:25,640
Speaker 1: it was even worse in the Congress of the United States,

281
00:17:26,400 --> 00:17:26,840
Speaker 1: and now.

282
00:17:26,720 --> 00:17:31,680
Speaker 2: Tell us about the Sevenitude decision written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

283
00:17:32,320 --> 00:17:36,800
Speaker 1: Oh, the decision by Kavanov It grants standing to entities

284
00:17:36,840 --> 00:17:42,080
Speaker 1: that are not regulated by the California Provision, not directly regulated.

285
00:17:42,840 --> 00:17:45,359
Speaker 1: It wasn't brought by the car company. It was brought

286
00:17:45,400 --> 00:17:50,880
Speaker 1: by other entities, energy companies, biofuels companies, companies that want

287
00:17:50,880 --> 00:17:54,040
Speaker 1: to be able to sell you know, fuels and are

288
00:17:54,119 --> 00:17:58,160
Speaker 1: angry about the shift to electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles

289
00:17:58,440 --> 00:18:01,359
Speaker 1: because it's going to impact their sales. They argue with

290
00:18:01,480 --> 00:18:05,040
Speaker 1: some justification, right, but you know that's not the kind

291
00:18:05,040 --> 00:18:09,680
Speaker 1: of injury that the Supreme Court would ever countenance. If

292
00:18:09,680 --> 00:18:14,040
Speaker 1: an environmental organization was making that argument, you'd be thrown

293
00:18:14,040 --> 00:18:16,680
Speaker 1: out of court on your ear. Trust me, I've been

294
00:18:16,760 --> 00:18:19,960
Speaker 1: thrown out on my ear for making those kinds of

295
00:18:20,440 --> 00:18:24,200
Speaker 1: arguments where you're not the direct target of the regulation.

296
00:18:24,560 --> 00:18:28,359
Speaker 1: But when it comes to industry and corporate interests, you know,

297
00:18:28,480 --> 00:18:31,159
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is it's olay. You know, it's your

298
00:18:31,280 --> 00:18:34,240
Speaker 1: waves into court by virtue of the fact, Well, you're

299
00:18:34,280 --> 00:18:38,560
Speaker 1: a business interest, you're a serious interest. And even if

300
00:18:38,600 --> 00:18:41,880
Speaker 1: we might think that some of your claims are exaggerated,

301
00:18:42,280 --> 00:18:45,240
Speaker 1: and certainly it's hard to tell exactly how and when

302
00:18:45,320 --> 00:18:48,320
Speaker 1: you're going to be affected by the waiver of the

303
00:18:48,359 --> 00:18:51,919
Speaker 1: California standard. We're gonna let you into court anyway. So

304
00:18:52,080 --> 00:18:55,760
Speaker 1: it's just, you know, a case of unfair treatment of

305
00:18:55,840 --> 00:18:58,720
Speaker 1: environmental groups on the one hand and generous treatment of

306
00:18:58,760 --> 00:18:59,920
Speaker 1: industry groups on the other.

307
00:19:00,600 --> 00:19:04,679
Speaker 2: Pat let's talk about the Supreme Court's recent decision curbing

308
00:19:04,680 --> 00:19:09,879
Speaker 2: federal Court's ability to block policy enforcement through nationwide injunctions

309
00:19:10,080 --> 00:19:14,040
Speaker 2: and how that affects environmental litigation. What did the court

310
00:19:14,119 --> 00:19:15,040
Speaker 2: leave open there?

311
00:19:16,240 --> 00:19:19,280
Speaker 1: Well, you know, the case came to the Supreme Court

312
00:19:19,359 --> 00:19:23,240
Speaker 1: on a preliminary injunction and you know, sort of by

313
00:19:23,359 --> 00:19:28,159
Speaker 1: definition that means it was a preliminary decision of the court.

314
00:19:28,520 --> 00:19:32,240
Speaker 1: So one question is going to be, does the ban,

315
00:19:32,680 --> 00:19:38,399
Speaker 1: if you will, on universal injunctions or nationwide injunctions as

316
00:19:38,440 --> 00:19:43,399
Speaker 1: the Court describes it, Does that same rule apply at

317
00:19:43,440 --> 00:19:47,520
Speaker 1: the permanent injunction stage of the case where the Court

318
00:19:47,560 --> 00:19:51,960
Speaker 1: has determined on the merits that whatever action you're challenging

319
00:19:52,119 --> 00:19:56,000
Speaker 1: is illegal. It may have even been void of initio,

320
00:19:56,119 --> 00:19:58,560
Speaker 1: as we say, right, it was never legal to begin with,

321
00:19:59,200 --> 00:20:03,880
Speaker 1: So what a cour also be precluded from issuing an

322
00:20:03,880 --> 00:20:08,040
Speaker 1: injunction that would have nationwide effect at the final stage

323
00:20:08,040 --> 00:20:10,160
Speaker 1: of the case, as they say, where the court has

324
00:20:10,200 --> 00:20:12,840
Speaker 1: determined there's there's a violation of law, and now are

325
00:20:12,880 --> 00:20:15,680
Speaker 1: you really serious that it would be a violation only

326
00:20:15,720 --> 00:20:17,560
Speaker 1: in the state where the case was brought and not

327
00:20:17,680 --> 00:20:20,639
Speaker 1: anywhere else. It may be that that is the rule

328
00:20:20,960 --> 00:20:23,359
Speaker 1: going forward. That's what I think. You know, people that

329
00:20:23,400 --> 00:20:27,199
Speaker 1: are commenting in the legal academy and practitioners that you

330
00:20:27,200 --> 00:20:31,119
Speaker 1: know regularly practice environmental law are saying, so maybe that

331
00:20:31,280 --> 00:20:34,320
Speaker 1: is the result of the case, that district court judges

332
00:20:34,359 --> 00:20:38,200
Speaker 1: are never going to be able to issue nationwide injunctions.

333
00:20:38,520 --> 00:20:41,360
Speaker 1: But if you read the decision and it's it's fractured,

334
00:20:41,359 --> 00:20:44,000
Speaker 1: there's a whole bunch of different opinions in the case.

335
00:20:44,000 --> 00:20:47,359
Speaker 1: So trying to triangulate where do you have five votes

336
00:20:47,400 --> 00:20:51,560
Speaker 1: and on what that's still an open question. And certainly

337
00:20:51,920 --> 00:20:56,840
Speaker 1: as Kavanaugh throughout the option of bringing class actions. You know,

338
00:20:57,000 --> 00:21:00,560
Speaker 1: so that then introduces the question, well, you know, for

339
00:21:00,640 --> 00:21:05,159
Speaker 1: birthright citizenship, what's the class it would be all the

340
00:21:05,240 --> 00:21:08,720
Speaker 1: kids in offspring, I guess you'd say in the country

341
00:21:08,840 --> 00:21:14,639
Speaker 1: that are the children of undocumented migrants, but they were

342
00:21:14,640 --> 00:21:16,879
Speaker 1: born in this country, and the fourteenth Amendment says if

343
00:21:16,880 --> 00:21:20,080
Speaker 1: you're born in this country, you're a citizen. Right. And Alido,

344
00:21:20,200 --> 00:21:23,359
Speaker 1: in his concurring opinion, saw this as he would expect

345
00:21:23,359 --> 00:21:26,119
Speaker 1: he would. He saw this as a loophole. He said,

346
00:21:26,240 --> 00:21:29,800
Speaker 1: if you can declare a national class, then you can

347
00:21:29,880 --> 00:21:32,320
Speaker 1: just get around the ruling that you can't issue a

348
00:21:32,400 --> 00:21:37,119
Speaker 1: nationwide injunction. So there you go. Are class actions going

349
00:21:37,200 --> 00:21:40,480
Speaker 1: to be the way that plaintiff lawyers are going to

350
00:21:40,520 --> 00:21:44,040
Speaker 1: try to get around the decision in the Casa as

351
00:21:44,080 --> 00:21:46,600
Speaker 1: it's called case And the answer is yeah, they're going

352
00:21:46,640 --> 00:21:49,600
Speaker 1: to try to do that. And once again, here we

353
00:21:49,640 --> 00:21:53,000
Speaker 1: go again. We don't have a clear answer from this

354
00:21:53,119 --> 00:21:58,000
Speaker 1: decision about when will universal injunctions be allowed and when

355
00:21:58,040 --> 00:22:01,400
Speaker 1: will they clearly never be allowed. We just don't know.

356
00:22:02,440 --> 00:22:09,359
Speaker 2: Our class actions are realistic alternative for plaintiffs in environmental litigation.

357
00:22:10,400 --> 00:22:13,919
Speaker 1: I doubt it, you know, because number one, you know,

358
00:22:14,040 --> 00:22:16,359
Speaker 1: trying to define the class and the Supreme Court has

359
00:22:16,359 --> 00:22:20,200
Speaker 1: actually made it very difficult to certify classes. I mean,

360
00:22:20,200 --> 00:22:23,199
Speaker 1: that's the whole separate process that the courts have to

361
00:22:23,240 --> 00:22:25,800
Speaker 1: go through to figure out, you know, is this really

362
00:22:25,840 --> 00:22:29,679
Speaker 1: a case where you can define a class and if so,

363
00:22:29,800 --> 00:22:33,359
Speaker 1: what is that class. And for environmental violations, you know,

364
00:22:33,359 --> 00:22:37,160
Speaker 1: if you think about Endangered Species Act and neep of violations,

365
00:22:37,480 --> 00:22:40,520
Speaker 1: even violations of the Clean Air Act the Clean Water Act,

366
00:22:40,760 --> 00:22:44,719
Speaker 1: it's pretty difficult to say any particular violation is going

367
00:22:44,760 --> 00:22:48,400
Speaker 1: to be national in scope. You know, the birthright citizenship

368
00:22:48,440 --> 00:22:51,399
Speaker 1: is the exception to that. Probably, and maybe some of

369
00:22:51,400 --> 00:22:54,119
Speaker 1: the other things that the Trump administration is doing with

370
00:22:54,680 --> 00:22:58,560
Speaker 1: both deportation and maybe even some of the defunding moves

371
00:22:58,600 --> 00:23:02,040
Speaker 1: that they're making that my have national implications. You know,

372
00:23:02,080 --> 00:23:06,320
Speaker 1: there are probably some types of violations where a national

373
00:23:06,400 --> 00:23:10,760
Speaker 1: class could be defined, but probably environment it's going to

374
00:23:10,760 --> 00:23:14,199
Speaker 1: be difficult if you are able to define a class

375
00:23:14,240 --> 00:23:18,040
Speaker 1: that's broader than just perhaps within the bounds of a

376
00:23:18,080 --> 00:23:22,680
Speaker 1: state or even a judicial district that's issuing a decision.

377
00:23:23,240 --> 00:23:26,240
Speaker 1: Once you do that, once you certify the class. Maybe

378
00:23:26,440 --> 00:23:29,240
Speaker 1: I've been involved in class actions, maybe you have as well.

379
00:23:29,359 --> 00:23:33,960
Speaker 1: I'm sure lots of people have. You get a notice, right, congratulations,

380
00:23:34,000 --> 00:23:37,199
Speaker 1: you've just been named in class acts. But now you

381
00:23:37,280 --> 00:23:39,560
Speaker 1: have to opt in or opt out of the class.

382
00:23:39,760 --> 00:23:42,399
Speaker 1: If you opt into the class, you've become a party

383
00:23:42,440 --> 00:23:45,600
Speaker 1: to litigation you didn't even know about, right, somebody brought

384
00:23:45,600 --> 00:23:47,640
Speaker 1: a class action lawsuit and all of a sudden, you've

385
00:23:47,680 --> 00:23:50,320
Speaker 1: been named as a member of that class. You have

386
00:23:50,400 --> 00:23:53,560
Speaker 1: the option of opting in or not. If you opt in,

387
00:23:54,000 --> 00:23:57,400
Speaker 1: guess what you can be deposed. Now that doesn't usually

388
00:23:57,480 --> 00:24:01,480
Speaker 1: happen in these class action lawsuits, like abuse of credit

389
00:24:01,480 --> 00:24:04,040
Speaker 1: cards or something like that. But you have to be

390
00:24:04,080 --> 00:24:08,159
Speaker 1: given notice. That costs money. So the bottom line is

391
00:24:08,560 --> 00:24:13,679
Speaker 1: class actions are expensive, they're complicated. There's all kinds of

392
00:24:13,760 --> 00:24:16,720
Speaker 1: rules that go with them, all of which means that

393
00:24:16,960 --> 00:24:20,840
Speaker 1: relying on class actions to bring the kinds of environmental

394
00:24:20,840 --> 00:24:23,119
Speaker 1: cases that have been brought in the past, and the

395
00:24:23,240 --> 00:24:27,200
Speaker 1: kinds of cases where environmental groups have succeeded in getting

396
00:24:27,280 --> 00:24:31,159
Speaker 1: nationwide injunctions, and by the way, opponents of rules and

397
00:24:31,520 --> 00:24:36,119
Speaker 1: environmental protection have also gained nationwide injunctions. The specific legal

398
00:24:36,200 --> 00:24:40,040
Speaker 1: foundation is in business to do that very thing in

399
00:24:40,160 --> 00:24:44,120
Speaker 1: challenging rules under the Clean Water Acts. Think the Sacket case, right,

400
00:24:44,400 --> 00:24:47,320
Speaker 1: and others like that. So you know, this question of

401
00:24:47,440 --> 00:24:51,880
Speaker 1: nationwide injunctions as usual cuts both ways. You know, both

402
00:24:51,960 --> 00:24:55,320
Speaker 1: ends of the political spectrum, the conservative to the liberals

403
00:24:55,480 --> 00:24:59,720
Speaker 1: try to use that mechanism to get at violations of

404
00:25:00,280 --> 00:25:03,600
Speaker 1: law that don't require bringing a lawsuit in every single

405
00:25:03,680 --> 00:25:06,439
Speaker 1: state in the country, and don't require having to go

406
00:25:06,480 --> 00:25:09,720
Speaker 1: through all the appellate process, through the course of appeals

407
00:25:09,960 --> 00:25:13,600
Speaker 1: ultimately to the Supreme Court before you get a final resolution.

408
00:25:14,040 --> 00:25:18,320
Speaker 1: That's what the dissent in the nationwide injunction case was

409
00:25:18,359 --> 00:25:23,159
Speaker 1: pointing out, and Justice Jackson was ferocious, frankly in her descent.

410
00:25:23,440 --> 00:25:26,600
Speaker 1: You know, she was saying, you're giving free reign to

411
00:25:26,680 --> 00:25:30,639
Speaker 1: people to violate federal law, including Trump, and to say

412
00:25:30,680 --> 00:25:34,760
Speaker 1: that if you do win in one venue, that's the

413
00:25:34,760 --> 00:25:37,200
Speaker 1: only place you're going to win, and to win more

414
00:25:37,240 --> 00:25:39,159
Speaker 1: than that, you're going to have to go through this

415
00:25:39,320 --> 00:25:44,440
Speaker 1: tortuous appeal process. So you know, once again there's arguments

416
00:25:44,480 --> 00:25:48,280
Speaker 1: pro and con on nationwide injunctions. I would certainly agree

417
00:25:48,280 --> 00:25:50,320
Speaker 1: with that, and I would certainly agree they can be

418
00:25:50,400 --> 00:25:55,199
Speaker 1: abused by both conservative judges and liberal judges. Okay, so

419
00:25:55,600 --> 00:26:00,000
Speaker 1: finding ways to constrain abuses of issuing nationwide and US

420
00:26:00,080 --> 00:26:03,640
Speaker 1: junctions is a fair thing to do. But just creating

421
00:26:03,680 --> 00:26:07,160
Speaker 1: a per se rule that isn't really per se, as

422
00:26:07,160 --> 00:26:09,880
Speaker 1: we've discussed, that's not going to resolve it, I.

423
00:26:09,840 --> 00:26:13,640
Speaker 2: Don't think, and the lower courts are struggling with it already.

424
00:26:13,960 --> 00:26:17,399
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Pat. That's Professor Pat Parento of the

425
00:26:17,480 --> 00:26:21,240
Speaker 2: Vermont Law and Graduate School. And that's it for this

426
00:26:21,400 --> 00:26:24,119
Speaker 2: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always

427
00:26:24,119 --> 00:26:27,040
Speaker 2: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.

428
00:26:27,320 --> 00:26:30,360
Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

429
00:26:30,520 --> 00:26:35,560
Speaker 2: www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And

430
00:26:35,640 --> 00:26:38,679
Speaker 2: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

431
00:26:38,760 --> 00:26:42,240
Speaker 2: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

432
00:26:42,280 --> 00:26:43,760
Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg